The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Challenges

The Canadian Grand Prix weekend was all a bit of a rush, largely because I arrived18 hours behind schedule, after having driven through the night from Washington DC to Montreal in order to guarantee being in Canada.

I undertook this eccentric voyage when something inside me finally snapped and I realised that I have more faith in Santa Claus than I do in United Airlines. At least when dealing with Santa, the old fraud is jovial and smiling, whereas the United people are stony-faced and shifty. They tell lie after lie to their customers and then switch to “powerless in the face of perpetual disaster” mode, while also seeming to be completely immune to the pain of the people paying their salaries.

I have said “never again” so many times that I think I needed to prove it to myself by driving 13 hours non-stop in the dark, without sat-nav, surrounded by psychopath truck drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike and other celebrated highways and byways. It worked. The only way I’ll be seen on a United plane again is if they catch me out with a sneaky code share…

Once in Montreal, the pace slowed somewhat. F1 remains stuck in a state of inertia, everyone waiting to see what happens in Munich. There was the Adrian Newey announcement and there were some rumblings about drivers but the cost-saving talks seem to have stopped being serious. It is beginning to look like the FIA will soon make the calamitous decision to twiddle with its regulations to allow the definition of “constructor” in F1 to become less rigid, allowing new teams to purchase IP and, if they manufacture the cars (or pay someone to do it), they will count as being constructors. If that happens, it will be the thin end of a wedge that will, in time, create a two-tier F1, ending all realistic hope small teams may have of moving to the front. It will undermine the very essence of what makes F1 different to all the other championships.

The big teams are, of course, wrapped up in their own self-interest and are happy with this because it means that they can, in effect, become four-car teams and thus get a better return on their investment, AND gain more data, which will increase their sporting advantage over the smaller operations. Will any start-up team in the future ever be able to move up and win as Mercedes and Red Bull have done? They could buy their technology, as Force India does, but is that a recipe to win races? That merely gets you to a secondary level, where you get stuck. When the small team owners in the future compare the costs and chances of success of building their own cars as opposed to buying in the technology, they will cease to be real constructors and the sport will be on the slippery slope that CART went down with the number of constructors reducing until only one is left. The key question is this: will the big teams still be there when the companies that own them change their priorities? And how many teams for which F1 is a core business can survive such a decision in the long-term?

Cost-control is not easy to achieve but it is a better answer. Alas, it seems that even the FIA is now run with only the short term in mind and does not have the backbone for a fight. I fear for the sport in the longer term.

It may be that the only way for this to be stopped is for the European Commission to be brought in to discuss the sport’s governance.

For F1 a better route might be to simply throw some more money at the federation and acquire the right to use the World Championship moniker without hindrance, in a Premier League style operation. That would take the FIA out of the sport, which some think would not be a bad idea.

“Why do we need them?” An F1 team boss said to me in the course of the weekend.

I could not argue with that. Taking control of one’s own destiny is not a bad option – if you want to get safely to your destination…

Share this:

Related

97 Responses

Joe, if the teams were to take control of their own destiny in the way you suggest, what would stop them from going down the customer car route at all, given that these are smart people who would probably headquarter their new organisation off in some far distant land where the threat of EC interference does not exist?

It lets us see how lucky we are in Europe that when airlines fail to get us there and we don’t fancy driving until our eyeballs drop out onto our cheeks, we can let the train take the strain. This was brought out when my son-in-law got stuck at my house in the Var, after delivering my rally car there, when the Iceland volcano blew up. Train from Aix-en-Provence and just a few hours later and one change at Lille he was at Ashford.

What I don’t understand is your prediction that the FIA’s cowardice will lead to a 2-tiered system. We *already* have that. As it stands now, only megabuck outfits like RB and MB (and McL and F) have a prayer of actually winning, everybody else aspires to acquiring enough losers’ points to pay the bills. (You certainly can argue that Williams aspires to more than that, but nobody else even pretends to.)

FWIW, I think you need a better point of attack re: the destructive future FIA cowardice will engender. What you’re describing as a dismal future is already with us, and the FIA’s Ostrich Strategy will only give it a different form. And that different form will please many, as watching Kobayashi in a rented Ferrari or RB would be much mmore entertaining that watching him trundle around in a Caterham.

No we do not have that. If we did, Red Bull Racing and Mercedes would never have emerged from the midfield. The key is that there remain sufficient teams that exist only to race in F1. Manufacturers and sponsors cannot be trusted to stay in F1 if the going gets tough. Thus they should never be given the kind of power they now have. If you doubt this, think of BMW, Toyota, Honda, Benetton and so on. They come in and use F1 as it suits them. What the sport needs is secure teams for which F1 is the core business.

Sure we do. I don’t see how anyone can examine the last 15 years or so and see anything but a 2-tiered system.

A 2-tier system does not imply that entry into the top tier is closed. In the existing system, entry into the top tier requires the ability and willingness to spend ridiculous amounts of money. (As Toyota proved, that ability and willingness is not sufficient, but it is very much a necessary requirement.)

BE’s system of payouts guarantees that those who don’t start with absurd money will be kept below. But anybody who shows up with a bazillion bucks can hire their way to the top, as both RB and MB have proved.

What if you were a midfield team and came up with something you could license for cash, like, say raised nose cones, a la Arrows, was it? (correction gratefully welcomed)

Now that would give such a team a way to sell a design to propel them up the field..

But it might not be possible under current rules.

It may be, may or might be, possible, to argue that the inability to sell design, thereby estopping a market for IP, forces a complicity with IP abuse, of copying “because it’s there”. Now, there’s a difference between what. I call “Ikea infringement”, basically making a simulacrum of the appearance of something, and actual IP infringement, which in real design is the implementation. But I am interested mostly here in the culture of design and marketing design and profiting from good design, and to what extent teams are allowed to invent and sell.

In fact, so far, I have heard the EU competition authorities invoked only in terms of protecting the small teams in this business. But if one is talking competition, surely the bigger players ought not be prevented from marketing their race designs, provided they do so openly?

We need to open up this debate quickly. Leaving hugely complicated but vital decisions to closed door committee is the worst thing that can happen even if the outcome seems “right”. The wrong process creates bigger long term risk when you cannot discover how incorrect results were arrived at.

Raised noses = Tyrrell 019. And Tyrrell could certainly have used the income at the time.

‘Patenting’ would become another legal battlefield for the teams though – I believe that March had a sort of low high nose before Tyrrell, and it was Beneftton that introduced the full width underslung wing, as opposed to Tyrrell’s twin cranked wings.

Your right RShack. And this is the reason why F1 is headed for disaster. There is a need to simplify the rules, to get a commercial engine builder ( Cosworth ) back in the frame, and allow current and/or new teams to buy a car from other constructors, and enter the series. Allowing 3-4 teams to lay waste to F1 will be exposed as crass stupidity when 1/2 or 3 of them leave having either accomplished their missions or found it too expensive to justify involvement.
And the other big problem is that the FIA has allowed F1 to trump all other motorsport, thus restricting the depth of motorsport series for young people to follow. This is one reason why younger audiences are dropping imho. When I was a kid, I didn’t follow F1 as an F1 Fan Only, I followed Motorsport as a Motorsport Fan! I loved Porsche 917’s and Ferrari 512M’s just as much as a Ferrari 312B or Lotus 72. By dumbing down with GP2..GP3..etc etc, instead of building and renewing support for F3 & F2, the whole motorsport experience has been subjugated to quick profit in F1 but no longevity for motorsport. In rallying, the FIA are going to screw up the WRC by having a final stage shoot out to decide the winners and placings, utter rubbish just as the double pts F1 finale is.
The whole of motorsport is now being run by total idiots whose only interest is lining their own pockets.

And until there’s not a dog in the manger, or however you can describe the uneasy status quo, it will I think remain a fair criticism to call out selfish and often idiotic management. Doing so however is ridiculously unfair on a sport that is burgeoning with talent. The nature of the job requires rational, modest, minds and tremendous commitment to the point of straining families all too often. There is not even a lot of job safety, all told.

One reason I often blame for inadequate media coverage is you have to be as dedicated to even get close, more so even, because punishing hours of never ending concentration do not lend the participants to pander to even simply novice journalists, as opposed the truly inane.

That’s a bit of a catch 22. I wonder what could be done in a year if Joe could be prized away to be a ambassador / tutor for aspiring journalists, for the FIA. But every resource is squeezed to the max already, if they are any good, and what it would take to get Joe to carve up his week yet more, I don’t know.

Once again, I find myself clamoring for a project to make short form documentaries for frequent release through YouTube and every other way possible. Twenty minutes at a time, every talking head you can get, piles of serious questions. Some, even many, could simply talk to the camera and we’d get so much right off the top of their heads. Can a wheel man say something interesting for twenty minutes? Absolutely. The perception of a idiotic management is actually in need of being addressed, and the best way I can think is to show the talent that’s packing every team to the gills, but who barely catch their breath until season’s end, if then.

It’s not directly comparable, but this is a very good short documentary on the demise of Rythym and Hues, the VFX company who after 25 years, were in bankruptcy when they picked up their Oscar, for The Life Of Pi, it’s called Life After Pi, and it’s poignant and informative. If nothing else, watch for the moment when their director, receiving their Oscar, gets drowned out by music, the Jaws theme no less, half way through articulating the word “unfortunately…” I see in a certain way that budget caps or such efforts are putting a kind of strain on smaller teams, not helping them, causing a squeeze that makes a link for me to these VFX studios’ predicament. I don’t see any of the cost restrictions making life truly easier, instead like tax breaks, only those who can afford a tax law department seem to benefit. Not a perfect analogy, but it’s a grim situation I can’t explain better.

@ RShack. Rather than a two-teir system, we have a three-teir system. First, teir 1= Ferrari with its guaranteed 5% haul as well as its pocket Veto rights. Second, teir 2 = the elite teams; Third, teir 3 = the mid-field and back markers. The teams have no one to blame but themselves for allowing BE to manipulate them with money that rightly belong to them in the first place.

We do not live in an egalitarian world, so RB & MB have only been utilizing the time-worn techniques of successful teams. Often, in addition to the factors you noted, a little good old fashion luck helps. For instance, Kimi winning his wc was helped by luck. Vittel winning his first wc was helped by luck. And the beat goes on.

I see only three teams who fit that criteria, Williams, McLaren and Ferrari the problem is at least one wants customer cars. The thing is all teams come and go, Frank and Dennis won’t be around forever so who knows what they will become in the future one presumes they will continue but different owners have different objectives.

You can’t have it both ways you need a stronger core but then a outer shell that comes and goes I have listened to you for some years wanting to get manufacturers involved but now you can’t trust them. Well I don’t trust them either they are only ever interested in short term never take the long view.

Points well taken Joe. However dare I suggest there is NO independent team that can source the drive train and power units any more without manufacturer involvement. When Mercedes and Renault decide enough is enough they will be left with Ferrari and maybe Honda.

The new technologically advanced PU’s will always require a car manufacturer involved as the costs are so horrific.

“…secure teams for which F1 is the core business.” – IMO modifying the engine regs to appease the major auto manufacturers creates the exact opposite situation. F1 is probably the least important aspect of their business. And it creates an even bigger mountain to climb for potential newbies.

A lot of that is very true Joe, however you are hugely supportive of the new F1 regs. These regs simply do not make allowance for the continuation of F1 ,as it is way too complex and expensive now, for any new team to be able to last long enough to eventually be competitive and become winners.
It needs a complete revamp and a return to simpler regs all round with a much lower cost base to enter and run competitively, and the starting point needs to be customer cars.

The new rules have been almost perfect to show what life there is. It’s a spectacular change, and one time the cost of new rules in engineering has gone to showing what the sport can do. I personally can’t look back and compare. To me it’s a night and day difference.

What the new rules have also done is show how much F1 needs accompanying revolution in structure, management, and promotion. Because the engineering result, as displayed unarguably in the racing, clamors “and this is what we can do, so go do your job” to the powers that be, from the thousands of voices who actually make the show.

I hope the sense I have of ominous silence is not portent of a three way showdown between possible EC intervention, Bernie fallout and stake sales and the FIA playing some kind of rear guard action. I think there’s a tug of war going on, or at the very least shadow boxing in earnest. The pressure are long known, but I think lines are being drawn. I imagine this winter will be the time, as nobody in their right mind will upset this season.

Whilst driving home along the M4 into West London last night, I looked up at the stream of jets lining up to land at Heathrow and thought of your United horror story, as I identified the plane above me as a United 767.. the tailplane insignia is virtually invisible compared to Emirates or Singapore or BA, could just make out the words ‘United’ at the front of the plane.

I am beginning to wonder why the 2 new teams coming in are starting from scratch rather than buying an existing team. I wonder why?
Currently it must be extremely difficult to survive as a midfield or lower F1 team. The whole FOM payments and governance system is against their survival.
Are United Airlines much worse than the European low cost carriers, it sounds like it? I have never had the pleasure of fling with them and judging by the comments I don’t plan on it.

If you were intending to buy a team, it might be better to not look like that is your only option. Especially if you could poach a couple of important staff first without being thought of badly.. in fact if you wanted blessings from on high, the powers obviously want to see the team count expanding, or appearing to expand, even if in the end it is a buyout. Meanwhile, so long as you are not rushed, financially or otherwise, it could be a buyer’s market. By playing the new entrant route, you get to see I think more of the way FIA//FOM and other players are positioned. Just buying a team throws you immediately into potential crisis mode, handling change and uncertainty you have no experience of on the ground. A pure financial buyer might have less worry going straight in to purchase a team. But I don’t think anyone wants pure financial buyers, even if they are loaded rich, just now.

Maybe the talk about starting from scratch is just a ploy. Or maybe it depends on what Haas aspires to: does he want to join the club, or does he want to beat the club? We’ll see in the long run…

As for United Airlines, it’s been miserable for ages. They merged wtih Continental and it appears that the only good thing they’ve kept is the paint job. From the customer point of view, all the policy changes are for the worse. The many good people who came from Continental in the merger are clearly disheartened. It’s a very sad tale. I’ve got a ton of miles on Continental from when I used to fly them 100K miles per year… I better use them before United runs the whole thing into the ground.

There might just be enough shakedown before Haas is supposed to roll up to the grid, to cut all manner of deals. I hope too, not with bated breath, but sincerely, he does have a plan to make it a US based team.

Maybe just finding a way to keep a technical group in the states will be enough to start building a base. There must be some ability to think of technical transfer from what is learned, to partners locally in the states. I don’t think it has to be a full home country R&D to manufacturing effort to call it a US product honestly. The long term opportunity having a stateside team presents is deeply attractive. I think all they need to do is have enough connections at home to be in contact with talent there, with other companies.

Tesla come to mind for battery tech, and they’ve just released their patents in a gesture I am sure is far more than a gesture.. I am thinking too of other kinds of talent that are almost US native, which might spill over. Reverse engineering and the technical and legal process of that is almost a home skill, in computing.

What interests me is if you can get a kind of left field talent base, even a think tank, skunk works if you like, attracting from other fields. Ît’s too easy to talk down chances of a entry without being down with the crowd, but surely Haas knows how hard it is to hit the ground running? He does not look deluded to me.

I hope it’s not silver bullet territory, but I refuse to think it is impossible to find angles that will give advantage. Say this was to promote a particular tech, say batteries for the energy store, would that not be interesting, if rules opened to ease marketing drive trains?

I’m thinking if customer cars are possible, it may not be whole cars, rather a interoperability so that profits can be made from relatively smaller innovations. As for battery tech, keeping up with that might keep at bay interest in other series. I’m just throwing things at the wall, no idea what might stick, but if there could be a open market for components, which are know restricted or the preserve of just big manufacturers, then that I think would counterbalance the idea of losing teams as constructors as a mantra, because teams could remain manufacturers as long as they can innovate, and smaller teams may gain the possibility to focus their resources on advantages the more if they can resell. In the end, the goal has to be more constructors, not less.

The way to ease the dilemma whilst enticing new entrants, is to make the road to being a genuine constructor one which can encompass manufacturing and profits therefrom. In other words, I think we will see “customer cars”, but it will not be so cut and dried, and will be a two way street, not a bear trap that will crush the ankles of the back of the grid. I can but hope.. I think we’re good for a bit, thanks to the new rules, which have bought time to do something ambitious. Cross fingers it is not wasted in politics and ownership struggles, or worse. I’m harping on this whole “sell every component” gig, because I think it would provide real motivation for who keep this show running, which may be mire important than immediate financial gains. Possibly customer cars are a temporary mitigation, and not to be seen as they bogey man option.

The National Gallery on the mall in DC has this pair of still life paintings, one of fresh flowers and the other of the flowers withering. I was much more taken with the later, just as I am with the current state of F1. It’s pathetic that Newey has stepped back due to the restrictions on design. But I cannot look away.

Newey has said in the past that he would like to design a racing boat, and the America’s Cup is the biggest prize in sea racing, so I reckon that RB thought it better to allow him to do that from within RB rather than let him go, and once he’d got the AC out of his system, then return with another F1 team….sound idea really, after all FW and RD both allowed the guy to leave their teams without much thought to the consequences for their competitiveness with Newey operating elsewhere, and both their teams suffered greatly as a result. Neither has won a Constructors Championship since have they?

Who would acquire the rights from the FIA ? If it was CVC or any other financial organisation then would the sport not be more exposed than it potentially is now as you have suggested ? If it was the teams themselves running the sport then that process may be accelerated even more quickly. Dare I suggest that we may better off with Todt and his bunch of yes men at least having some control assuming of course that they do still have some real influence in what happens ?

It is possible that the competition commission could review whether the FIA had the rights to sell in the first instance. So it may be possible that JT is looking to find a new structure that will preempt any possibility of actual investigation let alone forcible restructuring. Restructuring under a government of – to some minds — dubious authority in itself, is possibly the last thing any sport or business needs. If the fear of sanction is invoked, it will be noteworthy who first invokes any fear and under what circumstances. I don’t think any rational person wants to be a ward of European Commission process.

Which makes me think if a certain Frenchman might not have been busy creating just that scare. If equity majority passes to who can fix the media coverage, the FIA are going to be hurt for their care less attitude to PR. Maybe that will happen anyway. Malone and Liberty Media may not be who I dream of as owners, and I prefer Murdoch’s record with marketing sport, but Malone can butt a head or two. Everyone big in media has played bankruptcy affine strategies plenty enough. A breakaway with distribution guaranteed is very possible. Taking broadcast to pay TV in core markets has been a test. As in test the serious market for fans, how much they will pay, and with years to run on the contracted income, maybe there’s enough time to have a fight over what the FIA is to F1. If Bernie takes a drubbing, it may not matter if he is convicted, judges get to say a lot in their findings, and the Max and Bernie act is entombed in concrete. I suspect there will be a almighty fight afoot soon. Just no way will anyone detract from this season, not now. It’s being lined up, at last, I think. I wonder if then we can stop worrying and learn to love our new overlords, then? Think about it: how easy is it to settle the majority of oft bemoaned complaints? Half our moans are readily, if not easily, addressed. Possibly the other half can be done by someone determined to grow the sport so that a better distribution of money won’t sting. Only after there’s made a simpler route to enter a team. Even Haas could be a trial balloon, if he’s told there’s a real chance he won’t look like a fool. I’m not actually pessimistic about the possibilities.

Nick, I don’t think that F1 would be any better if run by the teams frankly. They are all too fundamentally greedy and selfish to see the benefits of working together as opposed to looking after themselves first, and devil take the hindmost. This is where things go pearshaped as they are so easily divided that for anyone smart ( like Bernie ) it is simple to manipulate them any way they want. The current rules are an example. Not many people give a fig about F1 being Green, however although half the grid are in financial turmoil, none of them had the sense to resist this change which has only hugely increased their cost base and their uncompetitiveness with the top teams.

Another side effect of customer teams will be a big loss for engineering skills.
.
In the past young people could start with a small team and end as super designer for a top team (or even as a team Boss/Owner)

No longer a need for that with customer teams.
Where will the (top) teams get their designers/engineers from?

The whole idea seems to me like the last nail in F1’s coffin.
Too bad the fan’s and the teams will pay for the funeral.
Bernie’s Daughters won’t.

How so? There are only a handful of motorcycle manufacturers worldwide with the resources and capabilities to develop bikes for Motogp, and for the most part,they are already involved. Honda, Yamaha, and from 2015, Suzuki all field factory efforts, leaving Kawasaki as the only Japanese manufacturer not currently doing so. Ducati has had a factory team for over a decade, and Aprilia supplied what is in essence a complete motorcycle for the CRT grid over the last two years. BMW has also supplied engines to CRT teams. Now Honda supplies a complete bike for the Factory 2 grid,and Yamaha are leasing engines and chassis to smaller teams..

The CRT and Factory2 bikes have seen grid numbers rise up to the mid twenties for the first time since the late 90’s, and more teams are looking to enter the class, only the governing bodies reluctance to expand the grid numbers any further are holding them back. The quality and depth of racing over the past few seasons has been better than previous decades.

I see Joe’s point as to how the customer car situation could impact F1, but at the same time I do feel that the balance of power is already skewed so far in favour of the big teams that realistically it is nigh on impossible for a small team to make that leap anymore. IMHO,what is needed is someone to come in and take charge as Bernie did way back,but with a more modern and equitable agenda. This whole governance-by-committee thing is never going to work. As far as Mercedes and Red Bull becoming world beaters,let’s not forget that they were both factory teams in their not-so-distant history, and have had humongous amounts of money thrown at them to get them where they are now.

I thought motorbike racing looked in rude health in recent years. I know nothing about it, but it looks fine, and fans I know never moan about manufacturers or teams like we do here, they just bang on .. and on and on about how whoever crashed so manfully… I caricature, but motogp fans I know love to describe crashes, usually just before showing me where they’ve prized metal appendages from buying that Kawasaki they always wanted as a boy…

The real problem lies in self interest, the decision is left to a few powerful men only not the team as whole. These decisions are driven by Luca, Mastriech, Dennis I am not sure who pulls the strings for Mercedes but it’s obvious that now they are on top they are making sure it stays the way they want.

The hypocrisy is that given a chance the smaller teams would love to do the same thing or be in same position, I wonder if those teams below see the writing on the wall but if they manage to escape the axe and become a RB will they be more sympathetic in the future.

I know I say we should be positive, I am positive that human nature won’t change until it’s to late.

If each team had a vote in reaching binding decisions, with all votes having the same weight, then human nature could improve things. The problem is that the existing 2-tier system extends beyond the race track and corrupts the sport’s decision making.

There’s also this every confusing… I’m sure there’s rationale, but I think the motive is to confuse… agglomeration of associations, groupings, acronyms seeking attention, which seem to be part of the polarization of the sport. We’ve had them notably since the Concorde petered out, so I presumed they were substitute agitprop groups meant to mess with the soviets. Rather in the way at one time labor party committees got mixed up by communists in the sixties and seventies. Only one example, there are many. If in doubt, set up a group apparently loaded against you, then stuff it with sleeper opinions to stifle debate or cause stick in the mud problems.

“Time to Explain””, it is titled, and modestly and interestingly written. If you can find a copy, you might even delight in the embarrassed way he is always apologizing for his privilege of birth, as a distilled piece of lost culture. But Mayhew was a actual intellect driven by intellect and to the best of my ability I cannot see otherwise than his privilege of birth enabled him to be quietly useful and have a degree of independence which he used when he saw fit, even when it was very much against party line, and he clearly lost chances of top jobs as a result. His auto bio is patrician as he is, and it’s hard to call anyone that now. Oops, reason I mention is because he is very succinct when it comes to explaining committee life, and how he was outmaneuvered even when he had good logic. You got the sense that if he was arguing something else, he would have suffered a rigged vote. If I ever bump into him again, a school friend made cabinet office even ten years ago, how so boggles my mind, he being my elder by hardly a year, but if I ever do, Mayhew poses better questions as to what politics is on about than I had from my own thinking. You might enjoy reading him. My reaction reading his book was often to quickly counter his arguments as I read, only to find he was quietly building a quite watertight case that caught my first reaction dead cold in one hand. That is a way to enjoy being outplayed, I got the impression as one could once, that he thought of the real world as run by good amateurs, with a dislike to professionalism, and so when out argued, I felt it was with good humor…

Sorry, this was about votes and tiers of teams.

By way of diversion I am trying to say that there are nor even distinct classes of team, to my understanding, in that you have notably different either porous or non porous boundaries of culture. We just seem to have money and talent cuffed in gold, or not a lot. If there was a developed culture of levels and abilities and resources, this would be a easier debate. But I think the distinction is really too crude. Have and have not, simple as that. If we cannot make for egalitarian ownership possession and ledger domain, can there be a better difference if culture that can be nurtured? If teams can thrive in a different way, on less money, and still have a realistic goal to progress, without simply mainlining finance, is that not the better aim? No amount of artifice is going to cause that to happen. Have we already created a situation in which smaller teams pray for rain or windfalls virtue a shakeup? If that’s all they do, if it were however sadly just that they dream of, then maybe better to say done with the structure that manifests such impoverished dreams.

I hope you get as much from the book as I did, a insight into why politics when I was a child seemed so, well, confused. Yet. There was quiet thinking going on. A more modern man would be up in arms at being stifled like Mayhew was. Or rather I imagine someone less inquisitive might have back stabbed, given the circumstances, and I think he got it a bit hard, and thought government was a character building exercise, like public (private) school and the army! Some very interesting comments on political lobby that affect history far more than has been allowed since. I’ll let you find your own view. I was shocked in a “oh, that makes so much sense” kinda way. Why is the shipping always the bigger cost??! Guess I will hear your comment on the book in a month or so!:-)

Reduce aero development, as an example teams should be allowed to make fifteen changes a year, all parts registered with FIA seal, this would ensure all teams big and small have some form of level playing field, reducing the amount of parts would reduce costs dramatically……….

“reducing the amount of parts would reduce costs dramatically” No it will not. It will only lead to the same effort, condensed in fewer parts. A single part would become that much more important, that the teams will simply spend millions on developing it before deciding upon it’s final design. It is in no way a sensible approach to limit spending. Freezing the engines only led to the money being spend on aero and other bits.

I would imagine that at some point the car-makers – Mercedes and McLaren – along with Red Bull will decide to focus on going head-to-head with Audi, Toyota and Porsche’s LMP1s. At which juncture Ferrari will claim ownership of the ‘F’ in F1 – or join the others.

Would you say this is more or less likely than cost control in motorsport’s leading series?

ݧI like your Premier league comment. It has to be a question asked time to time, what is the reason for any structure. I feel like I’ve been talking of the FIA in this sport more than the racing, for my whole experience. When I was a boy, FISA — FOCA wars were afoot. I feel though not so much adrift, without the Bernie and Max show. Instead I am not sure whether JT is consciously leaving a silence to hang about, whilst trying to appear remote at the same time as pushing rules that can totally change the makeup of what’s done. JT’s smart, we were fed up with apparent micromanagement, almost Stockholm syndrome attendees on MM/BE proclamations. Maybe the sense of freedom, combined with new toys, is a deception. I don’t get it though: once you have JT’s accolades, a Chevalier and so on, what is the game to play, what is the motive to bias? Could it be mindful of his son, or another kind of legacy? I guess I could understand better what motivated the previous double act, and that gave me a sense of where things might go, whereas not I am at a loss.

ݧCustomer teams will upset the whole apple cart. I don’t know they cause inevitable polarization, but when you combine them with a drift of talent to one end of the grid, as well as money, as well as data and test information, it looks very dire.

ݧIf there was a way to facilitate teams entering quickly with customer cars, but weaning them off, that is not so stupid. But if you are going to do anything along these lines, the need is for some very clear communication as to what the spirit of the rules is going to be. This needs a statement to be absolutely clear, as to intent of rules. The overhead that could put on teams now, however, any overhead in change, as Jem made me realize the other day, is benefit who are better resourced.

ݧNothing I hear from the FIA indicates to me they have had a renaissance in ability to communicate. That is the worst worry of mine, when you raise the spectre of CART’s self consumption. I have not trivial experience in civil litigation, and grew up understanding the calamity of the case law system of refinement, in which too many decisions on appeal only happen because a case is sufficiently funded. That leaves sometimes very long gaps when judges will not address issues that smaller actors cannot afford to take to appeals. Max M knew that intimately and created around himself a court structure that used, possibly abused, these systemic traits, yet he maintained a semblance of policy over and above. Maybe sometimes just a appearance. JT is not a legal mind. Few minds are as competent in law as Mosley.

ݧWhat I am tilting at is that tinkering with a system developed to suit a highly articulate legal mind, might be a very bad idea. It may be, to get the most from the organization, JT has not the right mind to understand how things could get out of hand.

ݧWith Max, if he wanted a rule introduced, teams could appreciate that if they wanted to argue the details, three would be a depth of response to that. Basically if you develop a system to suit one kind of thinking, it may not be readily adapted to another. I don’t think anyone would say F1 has a ideal governance structure, practitioners in real law spend much of their time understanding how to accommodate the frailties in far longer refined systems.

ݧMy fear is that well intentioned changes could be pushed too far by wealthy teams. There’s evidence enough, as recently as double diffusers, but that will look like a storm in a EarthDream teacup, if radical changes wend their way through a inadequate system purportedly mean to balances loosening of rules. Equally, someone with intent to radically change a system, often uses inherent weaknesses to push through new reality. The New Labor government arrived in 1997 was expert at that, which has not seen enough public scrutiny. Incoming governments absolutely need to understand the changes to the mechanism of the past government which the last government tweaked to suit itself.

ݧBecause of that thought, I fear it is too early for JT to push through another significant change in the structure. He’s not likely to be voted out any time soon, so I hope he does not feel in a rush. What we have now is very positive. My concern is that whilst things seem very quiet indeed, there is a big push under way to change this sport in ways that affect ten years out, not the next regulations cycle, and that who is doing this do not have adequate understanding of what ten years out could bring.

ݧOutside observers like myself have not quite adjusted to the relative silence of the FIA, yet. Unfortunately I feel suspicious, when there’s so many signals of huge change and absence of appropriate official debate.

Sorry, I thought I had memorized the code for a em space beginning each paragraph, typing in 1895 instead of 8195.. turns out I got the Arabic symbol for the number 1895, which is, well, I never knew there was a symbol for it, I sensed my late biz partner twitch a moment, he being a real academic of Persian and Arab art , just confirming my union with the unwashed!.. http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0767/index.htm

has anyone calculated the savings to the teams of having a standard simple front wing which didn’t extend in front of the tyres ?
not to say the improvement in the racing by allowing cars to follow closer and be even less easier to damage than this years shorter wing

I imagine that would radically alter so much of the rest of the design it wouldn’t save a penny. Think of the things a front wing helps, starting kith brake ducts, so there’s another bunch of components affected…

I have read elsewhere people talking of standardized aero this season, in a couple of pieces. I once went on a fancy and suggested these could be off the shelf parts. I was thinking how much cost could be worked out of the complex front wings. Thing is the laying up of the carbon fiber is the expense in human time, as far as I understand it. So noses are going to always cost a bundle, unless they are either very simple, or there is a new way to manufacture. I will toot my own horn, only because these can hardly be ideas I conjured up all by myself, but I thought as much openly, over a year ago, no one replied here at least, and there was a article on a actual magazine site which went, well, no further into the thought than I had gone. It is a very interesting ideal though, because of how much is downstream that front wing, as to whether you could lay down a standard design. But from what I understand, and Pirelli have made noises about their suggestions, maybe mechanical grip and wide tires would negate a lot of this. We have turbos. Add wide tires. Then you can have fish slice front wings, no fancy filleted bits tilting off like a Eurofighter Typhoon geometry to try to blow a speck of dust perfectly through some hole in the engine cover when you turn into a corner at a certain speed and gear…

In the spirit of things, old ideas are often well revisited. There seems so little talk that we got turbos back, when there were such ardent enthusiasts for the return of them. Maybe those commentators only wished for rocket sleds that would jackknife on a discarded visor strip.. but give these current models more mechanical grip, and the teams are clamoring for softer tires, and well, all the tilkedrome runoff ever made will be accumulating dust and pining loss even of a accumulation of marbles, for time to come. Silly fast, and into the corners, please. I almost think the slower cornering speeds or lower grip is just to not show up the long runoff sweepers that never excited us anyway.

Maybe that will be next year.

I think we have enough simple rule changes to play with to get four years more of effing great racing, just going through some things like wide tires, that will give you simpler wings. That takes away a lot of other design effort. I’m not smart enough to know where it outs back the effort. In chassis I might imagine, you will need to handle those turns the better, and suspension goes with that, tires being suspension. Maybe it could even cut costs, but I’d never bet my socks on any cost saving.

If F1 were organised such that the circuits were making a profit out of running a race, circuit owners might be encouraged/forced to make the track modifications required to make the racing safe for the stewards and spectators, rather than continually putting the onus on the cars.

I used to fly Continental to the USA but they merged with United (all trace seems to have disappeared) and the last two flights with United were very poor experiences both in terms of service and the rather elderly planes used with a large number of non working video screens – not great on 8 hour flights.

In these times it is most evident that the FIA lacks pro-active leadership in the F1 arena. In Max’s era we would have known what he felt about it and what he wanted to happen, he would have been on tv telling us! Todt is at 200 fathoms.

The F1 policy group was a fantastic coup by Bernie, cutting down the number of people to be persuaded to any viewpoint. It suits him that there is no need for a CA, with lots of individual secret team, tv and circuit agreements he is headed for retirement before they expire.

Unfortunately, greed and fear the main drivers of all competitive commercial enterprise also prevent the teams forming the fully representative body that is needed. FOCA, FOTA etc are always doomed by the differing concerns of the teams. This is exacerbated by the traditional but now grossly unfair special advantages of Ferrari, which can always be counted on to create a division in any team umbrella.

We have seen 4 car teams before, but then there was more sponsor money available. Bernie need to disappear before the whole lot collapses. I find it somewhat ironic that in the middle of his trial he is considering paying back 5% of his commission to the bank, whose official he is accused of bribing.

You said in far fewer words, remembering the names of things, like the policy group, most of what I banged on about, above!

I think the sponsor side is done poorly. In this way: maybe getting McLaren a team sponsor is too tall a order, when pressed for time, against the perceived value on both fronts. But not having a active promotion of sponsorship along the grid, is harming the sport altogether. Salesmen are annoying. I am one, or have been one. They gravitate to where they think the biggest scores are. They are slow, very slow, usually, to realize change in industry, and often hang on too long to glory of associations. After all, you want your CV to have nice big names on it recently. Organizing sales teams is so much herding kittens sometimes.

A past business partner of mine, who still comes for a bus man’s holiday time to time, is super at finding out what is the catnip and where to wave it and how much to wave. Lovely bloke, couldn’t close a door. But knows _how to sell. What I am saying is that if I look at the grid rationally, I would be telling my sales team they are not allowed for a while to spend any time on deals for the top teams. Do Not Call for the lot of them, and with that a host of the, maybe all, the obvious prospective names.

Logically, we should be building up the order book, because valuing the smaller teams now will have a disproportionate effect on the bigger deals. The big deals may very likely be spooked by the state of the smaller teams,. The smaller teams need big sponsors. Not every sales talent has the skill to close a big contract. Complex deals often scare off buyers, and it can be worse, that when you have a prospect thinking for the first time of a complex deal, if you are acting for a smaller outfit, they can get nervous just because you don’t have the bug team and resources to hand hold. So to do this job, which is to revalue the sponsorship of the sport starting at the back of the grid, making a new tide to raise all boats as opposed to hoping a cup overfloweth from a rich captain’s chalice, requires a corralling of thought and talent and attention. It may need a bit of old fashioned lead sharing.

One of Bernie’s jobs was to patch together possible deals he heard might be going. He was good enough and revived enough, but his wider effect was greater than bailing out the odd unfortunate team. Information sharing. Of course plenty goes on anyway. But say you want to open new territory, well then sharing information, avoiding treading on toes, is more important. End of stories: get cracking on sponsors down the grid and you’ll calm a lot of nerves. Mucking around with policy groups is not confidence inspiring.

I could almost be saying, rig the market, only sell the rear of the grid for a bit ,but that would be naughty. What I am most definitely saying is do some price discovery, find some deals, and this is a brilliant year to up sell from, as the season looks to have a proper story. Definite upsell at the end of the year.

It’s interesting. You briefly touch on what happens in Munich. Myself, aside from knowing that Bernie’s on trial, or going on trial for bribery, that’s about all I know. Here we are talking about the most powerful person in F1 for the last, what, Almost forty years? And he’s going to trial, with the potential of spending the rest of his life incarcerated. Joe, you mention that Montreal is waiting to see what happens in Munich. My question is: What IS happening in Munich? In the F1 world, the subject appears to be a major taboo. Not one publication I see has so much as even touched the subject. It’s a topic non grata. Nothing from anyone. Not the BBC or CNN either. It congers up the question: Is Bernie actually on trial? NO one is saying a peep.

I imagine there is going to be a long deliberation period and a very lengthy decision to read, whatever happens. Will be done in time for double points finale?

May I answer the Bernie question?? Ooh ooh, me, in the back??!!

I think technically, if found guilty, there is a possibility Bernie could receive a sentence that would see him pass his final years in jail.

However, even if he is found guilty, I think there will be a long period before he is sentenced, and unless there is damning evidence – so far he has been called unreliable and other not so mice things only in a civil court – he will be bailed for that time. One expects he will be allowed to launch a appeal during that time, and may be bailed pendant a appeal, even if he is sentenced. As in he may be given a sentence, but remain on bail until his appeal process is heard. I do not know if they can hand down a sentence if there is a active appeal, but I’m covering the bases.

The real possibility is that this might drag on past Bernie’s lifetime, or failing that he will have his sentence commuted, or reduced on appeal. I think the will to see him jailed is not strong enough, unless there are very explicit revelations to be heard. So far, no matter how slippery he may come across, inhale read nothing that says he is worse than anyone who would rather not have been blackmailed. To convict him of bribing GG will need a very clear set of circumstances to be shown. If there is not a smoking gun proof, then circumstantial evidence alone will probably cause the court to be lenient and not sentence quickly or harshly.

The problem is that they have already given GG a quite hefty sentence for receiving a bribe. They are prosecuting BE for giving a bribe. Nothing yet has completed the equation of who started what. GG’s sentence sounds almost harsh enough they prefer to think he demanded the bribe also, as Bernie now attests. But if Bernie is shown to have instigated this, in my mind to actually have __bribed someone, his culpability ought to be the greater, for causing the crime to happen. In which case, one presumes a eight year sentence is the starting point for calculation.

All this is rather unhelpful speculation I am afraid. I have no new information, I’m just describing the parameters of it very broadly indeed. I haven’t even read the latest about the case, and it is only happening every blue moon or whenever Bernie feels well and the tea is already laid.

That is not to say this has no teeth. Gribkowsky could well be scape goat for much else besides, in his role which put him in the center of a lot of very painful valuations of mortgage securities which brought down a state bank. He may have been unfairly punished or even silenced for unrelated things. Equally, if Bernie was fast and loose and let something slip, there are enough unrequited desires the world around to find targets for private criminal litigation, and Bernie could find himself a target yet. Private prosecutions are easier when a state has picked up a investigative bill..

I’m going to have a fresh look at this, when I soon have a moment. I last paid attention to Grib’s case two years ago, or whenever it was, feels longer, saying I think before anyone else seemed to agree, that Bernie stood to be indicted, when at the time Grib had not been just yet, was under investigation. And this is quite fast for a two trials of this complexity to get to court. I’ve pals who have acted both sides for fraud trials, and two years is fast for simpler cases.

I think short of a resounding exoneration, our Mr E is effectively no more in the sport, in any way, even as a opinion maker. That may yet turn out in some strange way to be a unfortunate thing. Who knows what will turn up that only he has a angle on? But for him, as far as business is concerned, it is almost a life sentence already. I doubt they’ll send him to jail for long, if they do. If found guilty, then a condemning decision is more painful on paper at this stage of life. If I had to guess, I think he’ll actually do two years, if guilty. Enough to hurt, but not enough to cause a man to go to pieces and risk greater confusion, Samson fashion.

It is the Samson option that is on many minds, though. I can conceive of entirely theoretical circumstances wherein Jean Todt is rushing through enormous structural changes to side step unfortunate eventualities. Can Mr E go quietly into the night? Can something outside this trial, and maybe not tax inspector deliberations, disturb the proceedings? So far though, the couple of mentions i’ve read of the case have had managed to add nothing of substance, just as neither have I.

As an aside I commend the current Sidepodcast.com article “Le Mans recharged” which gives an interesting comparison between the ERS of 2014 LMP1-H cars and F1. We look forward to the next “Aside with Joe”

Firstly, full marks to Red Bull for keeping Adrian away from the opposition. Perhaps he is so valuable that it is worth funding indulgent ‘new projects’ just to keep him away from other teams.

Secondly, on Lewis v. Nico. Just a thought about data sharing. There are both constructors and drivers championships. Data or Intellectual Property leaking (even voluntarily) is a big no no amongst teams, ask McLaren. I’m just wondering why it should be different for drivers since clearly what is going on within Mercedes is affecting the Driver’s World Championship by making it closer and could ultimately even decided the outcome. So far, the ‘open’ nature within the team seems to mainly have benefited Nico by showing him where he is slower than Lewis. Full marks to Nico for being able to work out how to adapt his style to use that information. I wonder if Lewis realised that he was signing up to be Nico’s driving instructor. Perhaps that is what Damon Hill meant when he said that “I’m beginning to think that the only person that can beat Lewis is Lewis”. Why aren’t driver’s allowed to protect their “IP” as well?

To get back on track with this thread, F1 has always been about innovation but sports cars are threatening to take that over. Is the competition on the track or in the design room? There’s plenty of close racing in many other forms of racing, particularly one make series, yet these have nothing like the following of F1. The engine package is a key (and very expensive) component but F1 benefited in the 70’s and 80’s enormously from an affordable and competitive option, the ubiquitous Ford Cosworth DFV which enabled many teams to enter F1 and win. Newey says the rules are too restrictive, Allison says that Ferrari needs to be more innovative. What both these comments have in common is that both speakers regard innovation as the route to success. Why does innovation have to cost a fortune? Restrict horse power, make engines easily available and affordable, restrict downforce in the simplest way (not an inches thick rulebook) and allow maximum innovation, aren’t those the necessary ingredients? Are either CVC, the FIA or the current teams actually capable of thinking like this? Perhaps the Tata sponsored F1 Connectivity Innovation Prize might also offer or create a forum for the rulebook innovation needed.

Just a aside on restrictions: you suggest a HP limit. But efficiency matters, and so much can be spent to make those horsepower cost less in fuel or be available at different RPM. I think some exotic materials were banned to prevent piston rings being chosen to reduce friction but which cost the earth and wore out. I think this was about the early Byrne, Brawn, Schumi days. Having one tire supplier was I think a reaction to vast sums spent by Bridgestone for that same red car. Then the question is if components can be anointed with fulminant budgets, and return value from their short lives. There must be some story of incandescent expenditure on some evanescent part which may now be disposed? Can we not now hear? I would like to think, in a ideal world, that if a part manufacturer wants to spend their inheritance on furthering their art, or their folly, they may be at liberty to do so. However the potential conflict with resource restrictions, in exception, is less clear to see, than any congruity with improvement in the art. What I wish to see, is deeper articulation of what the art of formula one is. With in the moment, any moment, expectation of surprise of greater freedoms or lesser restrictions, or plain upturning plans (I shy from using the word “revolution”, please let that word not be invoked, for it is usually called out incorrectly, as in The Scottish Play) lurking in the wings, we need a exponent of the arts to explain again, what is the plot to this arc of high motor sport, what is the underlying purpose. We need more than the characters to come on stage and regale us with their intentions. Let there be more than caricature in the actors for “pinnacle of motorsport”, “constructors only” “freedom of entry and innovation” “regulations for fairness” and all the players who you rather suspect are all Falstaff in disguise, after a few good skins of wine. Come, now, tell us why this sport is what it is, and what you seek with it, and you may have a willing audience. We need more than intrigue and dancing before us, and dark insinuations, and high but empty words. We would like, please, to know where the beef is. Call us, and we will answer. Fair proposition?

I’m sorry, but if you’re writing the word ‘a’ and it comes before a vowel, it assumes the form ‘an’.
It is your inalienable right to use such verbosity in your posts, and is to be commended, however your grammar is painfully tortured!

Call me a socialist or communist, but this is the way I see it. There’s billions in revenue generated annually in F1 and yet participents (teams/circuit owners) are in debt and whose survival is in question. Seems to me that if the revenues were distributed more fairly they wouldn’t be in this situation and they’d be able to afford drivers based on merit rather than how much money they can bring. I’m sure it’s not that simple, but just saying…

I wish there was a “best of” for Joel blog, but you’d want to include the Formula One Encyclopedia as well, which was in greatest part Joe’s gift to the web, and put them on a timeline for the relevancy of comment. Nothing is untouched, and in effect Joe’s explained the whys and wherefores usually a few years before anyone else in the media have bothered to pay attention. There are some things uncovered there that seem otherwise still buried. Hmm, of all the projects I once thought I had time for, I never thought that of a timeline cross referencing posts before.. might be doable..

I can only sadly agree, Yes. I wish too a fairer system, and there ought to be one. But in fairness also, it is not right to enfranchise teams simply for existing. I think you need to do something to allow them to better compete, first, not simply hand out dividends on a welfare basis. Turning money into teams is still very hard. Only those with buckets of cash have made a arguably direct translation, and none have started from scratch. I think the time has come for a big shake up overall. Or rather I feel the inevitability, pressured from all sides, and it may be as well to do things whilst there is a good season or two still to come out of what has been created from this year.

It should be that simple. If you have a aim, you can aim for that. Not all are looking down the same arrow, however. So the purpose of good oversight in the FIA ought to be melding the rusty scaffolds of the broader system in some kind of parabola so that all are seated looking about the same way, and incoming rays of enlightenment may converge from all parts. I don’t think that is what is going on, in the silence in corridors at the place de la Concorde.

Still, what you say, absolutely yes, that has to be the further aim. To not aim to level the distribution, allowing for considerations and mindful of adjusting for some exceptional accommodations, is to give up leadership of a sport. To repeat on a metronome my recent cadence, tick we need to hear serious discussion, tock, we need to do this so those at the back can hear. So that the public can hear.

Ouch, twice autocorrect ate my words, and apologies for a few I’ve missed, I’m vainly trying to tame something I probably cannot.. first line above, Joe’s not Joel.. this surface tablet seems to get them right second time so my first I had to retype, then when I tried to make the same “mistake” it had “learned”..

In the light of the Newey departure. Do you think there would be interest in starting a new racing series with rules something like this: Engine similar to the current F1 / WEC, Safety standards up to current F1 level, Maximum budget 150 million, Open Single Seat, Races similar length to F1….

And that’s it, no more rules than that on the technical side. So giving them back the freedom to be clever but with just the budget cap to not let them go completely insane…

1) How do you ensure a racing spectacle? Freedom in aero development would rapidly lead to cars incapable of closesly following each other leading to sterile, processional racing – something like the early 2000s all over again.

2) How do you ensure safety for *all* involved? Crash structures and roll hoops are fine for drivers, but safety has to cover the trackside staff and the spectators. Given so many rules have been introduced to limit cornering speeds, largely to ensure the safety of everyone present (not just drivers), would it be possible to bin those rules – most of which limit aero innovation.

The principle is sound, but there are reasons the current rulebook is so limiting – finance is one, but safety and spectacle play a big part too.

Few rules, no design restrictions, except for safety cell and a 100m$ budget. Whoever does the best job with that wins… designers like Newey aren’t forced down the route of thinking up minor tweaks to gain a tenth, but can come up with ground breaking innovations. Some may even benefit mankind!

I see your analogy one step deeper. As suggested by Simonm, it’s WINGS. UNITED’s wings, and F1’s wings (since ’68 anyway)– the troubles sprout from there.

Aero is the problem, and the answer to so many woes. I’ve grown weary of my own lengthy explanations on the subject, suffice to say this:
Do away with external aero (wings), allow internal aero (floor, ducting, etc) and the cascade of positive change flows like an unstoppable river. Even to the seemingly remote problems you discuss. Yes, it does.

Seems few can see F1 sans wings, been waving them for so long, but I’m tempted to invoke John Lennon’s ‘IMAGINE’, “I wonder if you can”. For all the critical thinkers congregating here… try it. I know you’ll be pleasantly surprised be the logical outcome(s) of this thought experiment.

Just read the Haas interview on the FOM website. It’s a little… worrying… He combines the less successful impulses of USF1 and 1993 Marco Andretti with an endearingly transparent emphasis on selling CNC machines, and says that everyone he’s met in F1 has been very nice and that he hasn’t met any “sharks”.

Now,either he is laying on the aw-shucks, fresh-off-the-farm stuff with a very large, CNC-milled trowel… or he’s going to be the easiest meat to stumble into the Piranha Club in quite some time.

After all the yay and nay saying on this subject, I’m inclined now to suggest we lay off the guy for a while! If, as some have suggested, it is a matter of American ‘superior-ism’, he’ll get his just deserts – but on the other hand, if it’s a matter of ‘Yankee ingenuity’ then he’ll get his just deserts … I guess we’ll have to wait until 2016 to find out – it is after all his money to do with as he wishes. Do you like people telling you what to do with your money? No, I thought not!

Nicely put, RICCBATT. I’ve been trying to put that sentiment into words for the last week, and thus far have failed. You never know, an injection of fresh thinking from American engineers might even benefit F1. I’m just willing to wait and see what they can achieve.

Bernie Ecclestone turned F1 into what it is now. In the 1970s he negotiated deals for F1CA teams (which became FOCA) that allowed them to make some money or to go bust more slowly. A few constructors made silly sums of money.

Then Bernie changed his model. At a time when the sport was becoming less sporting and more like a business, Bernie reduced direct revenue to teams and circuits.

When Clay Regazzoni won the 1979 British Grand Prix, the BRDC (Silverstone’s owners) kept the gate money, sold all of the trackside advertising and event sponsorship, and controlled TV rights. Via agents, the BRDC was able to sell tickets and advertising effectively; the BRDC made money from the F1 race in order to support junior categories, rather than the other way around.

The BRDC was not geared up to sell TV rights, nor were the organisers of other championship races. Which allowed Bernie to change himself from a promoter of teams (F1CA/FOCA) to an event promoter (of FOCA teams), where Bernie owned two significant rights: TV broadcasting and trackside advertising. To rub it into the teams, Bernie (not the race organisers) would control the number of paddock passes that a team could issue to guests.

Aside from the cost problem, F1 can do a lot to sort itself out. Let’s ignore broadcast rights for a bit and consider how to disentangle Max Mosley’s deals with Bernie.

* Circuits and event organisers need to own more of the profits, especially trackside advertising. If an organiser wishes to sell rights to Bernie, that is fine but organisers deserve a choice.

* Paid paddock access should be determined by those who present the spectacle (ie teams and organisers).

TV rights have to be separate from event organisation rights. Long term TV rights have to be presented as a package and short term agreements have to be fulfilled. it is imperative to separate the telly deal from everything else.

I am into this now only as a footnote.
I have been involved in innovation in a country far far away for over 25 years. In that time one of the most significant changes was brought about because of the introduction of new governmental regulations.
Inspired, intelligent regulatory conditions do not defeat innovation: they inspire it because they make people think. Those inspired by those regulatory demons now command almost 2.5% of our country’s GDP and have also made them world thought leaders.

As Ernest Rutherford said: “we don’t have any money so we have to think”

I know I am not the only one that sees this years changes as an opportunity but its very disappointing to see so many teams that just want to evolve last years car. That’s not F1.